Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 17

Why was there no large-scale anti-Mexican rebellion in Alta California in the early 19th century like there was in Texas?

Why was there no large-scale anti-Mexican rebellion in Alta California in the early 19th century like there was in Texas? I'm well-aware of the extremely short-lived Bear Flag Republic in Alta California, but considering that its core of support was literally only something like a couple hundred people, I can't really say that this was a large-scale rebellion like the Texas Revolution was, now can I? Futurist110 (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean why there was no revolt of U.S. settlers, the short answer is that there weren't very many U.S. settlers before the beginning of the gold rush. Personal accounts such as Two Years Before the Mast might give you a better idea of what was going on in Mexican California than staring at maps... AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Providencia in 1845 resulted in the acceptance of US settlers' demands that the imposed Mexican governor, Manuel Micheltorena, be replaced with a native Californian in the shape of Pío Pico, and they all lived happily ever after (except the horse and the mule who were the only casualties of the battle}. Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that Texas was largely settled by American pro-slavery Empresarios; and by largely settled, I mean "they constituted the bulk of the non-native population at the time". At first Spain, and later Mexico, had a hard time getting their own settlers into the area, so they had a tacit agreement with the slave-owning Empresarios to settle the land and make it productive (i.e. make money and pay taxes to the government with it). Slavery had been outlawed in Mexico since they declared their independence from Spain, but they basically allowed it in the case of Texas for the reasons noted above. The entire Texas revolution was basically a way to get Texas annexed by the U.S. anyways; they had never intended to be an independent state for longer than necessary. The history, as such, is VERY different than in California, which did NOT have a history of Empresario settlement, did NOT have a majority American settler history prior to the Mexican American War and the annexation of California in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Notably, California was admitted as a Free State in the Compromise of 1850; there was not a history of slavery in California anyways, which is VERY DIFFERENT than Texas, whose American settlement was largely done by slave-holders. --Jayron 32 15:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't large numbers of American settlers who were opposed to slavery move to California before the late 1840s, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite hard to get to. And Oregon Country at least spoke the same language and might be in U.S. lands. The Donner Party died in the mountains of California during this time. Rmhermen (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be in U.S. lands or might be in U.S. hands (re: Oregon Country)? Also, good point about California being difficult to get to during this time! Texas I'm presuming was easier due to it being closer to Louisiana and not separated by the Rocky Mountains like California was, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Suriname Problem

hi, I'm editing the Flag of Suriname article which has a section about at war. The previous editor wrote this about a war against womens violence in the caribean: On 20th of November 1998, the flag of Suriname was raised during the war of women rights in Suriname. There was a slogan saying “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” that was repeated several times during the war.[13]The flag of Suriname was raised throughout the war of violence against women that was located in the Caribbean.[13]

I'm not sure what this is about. Would I be justified in removing it? Any help is appreciated. Gandalf the GroovyGandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section. The only source linked had no uses of the word "war" or of the word "flag". Nothing related seems to show up in google either. Rmhermen (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Two steps forward, one step backward: addressing Violence against Women in Suriname" by Maggie Schmeitz (Caribbean Quarterly vol. 52, no. 2/3, pp. 66–82) contains these sentences: The slogan "Women's Rights are Human Rights" would reverberate around the world, all the way to Suriname. and: The flag was raised for the battle against gender-based violence in the Caribbean on November 20, 1998, when the first Regional Tribunal on Violence against Women was held in Barbados. While it does not use the word "war", it used the term "battle"; it does use the word "flag". However, the idiom "the flag was raised for the battle" is clearly a metaphor. (Perhaps the national flags of delegations to the tribunal were flying at the entrance of the venue, but if so these were not battle flags.) I can imagine that the editor of the section that was removed, which referenced the article by Schmeitz, misinterpreted the intention. Much of the removed content was by itself correct and perhaps worth retaining in some form, but was utterly misplaced in this Wikipedia article. --Lambiam 11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I used control-f search for flag and it returned no hits. Turns out the linked title in the reference went to a workshop report - not the article which was linked but only through the DOI number. Rmhermen (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called Quadruple Alliance, and its expedition to Jerusalem in 1840

Our article about the Anglican-German Bishopric in Jerusalem mentions "the expedition sent thither [Jerusalem] in 1840 by the so-called Quadruple Alliance". None of the entries at the linked disambiguation page Quadruple Alliance appear to be intended. So - what was this so-called Quadruple Alliance, and what did the expedition involve? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference to it,[1] although to see more details you'll have to pay cash money. Here's another.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently these events have to with Convention of London (1840). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "thither" means the Middle East in general, as Oriental Crisis of 1840 says that an Anglo-Austrian fleet was in action at Beirut and Acre, in order to restore Ottoman control of the region from Egypt. Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–1841) has more details, but apparently Jerusalem was not directly involved apart from a change of management. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to the Quadruple Alliance of 1815 (Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain), four of the five Great powers of 19th-century Europe (the fifth being France). For more background, see Concert of Europe. --Lambiam 10:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to confirm a reference on Dracula

Hi there. I'm working on Dracula, and I'm wondering if anyone can confirm this source: "Between 1879 and 1898, Stoker was a business manager for the Lyceum Theatre in London, where he supplemented his income by writing many sensational novels, his most successful being the vampire tale Dracula published on 26 May 1897." While it is true, and I know it is, I've been burned before by trusting citations that were left in articles when I started working on them. The reference given is Barbara Bedford, Bram Stoker and The Man Who Was Dracula (London: Hachette Books, 2002), p. 269. I've failed to track the book down, and I'm trying to avoid Wikipedia becoming a pay-to-play hobby. Please ping me if you can assist! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers If noone can confirm it here, perhaps [3] could work as an alternate source, or you can try WP:REX. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:: I did have a look at that, but it’s unfortunately a biography of Stoker intended for children, so I don't feel comfortable using it. I've bitten the bullet and bought the book (that's a lot of B's). Thank you anyway! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] ImaginesTigers, I don't have Bedford's book, but I can confirm that the same information can be found within pages xv–xx of the Introduction to Dracula: or The Un-Dead, a Play in Prologue and Five Acts by Bram Stoker, edited and annotated by Sylvia Starshine, Pumpkin Books, MeG Enterprises, Nottingham (UK), October 1997 [not 1897]. This is the first published edition of the playscript (a single copy of which was deposited in The Lord Chamberlain's Play List of 1897, now in The British Library Department of Manuscripts) that was written, and performed at the Lyceum at 10:15am on Tuesday 18 May 1897 with no public audience*, in order to secure Stoker's performance copyright in any future stage versions of his novel.

(*To fulfil legal requirements, bills advertising the performance were displayed half an hour beforehand, and two tickets were sold, probably for a private box: likely only invited friends and theatre staff actually witnessed the performance.)

Is this sufficient, or shall I quote the specific (though scattered) sentences that between them corroborate the information you quoted? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

90.200.40.9, that would be incredible! I would love that very much. Thank you! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I can cite Stoker's job very easily; it’s the part about supplementing his income with fiction writing that I'm looking for. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

ImaginesTigers, some time in the next day or two I'll type out what seem to be relevant extracts and post them on your Talk page. Currently I have a number of things to see to (I'm on UT, so it really is 3:00am for me right now) and I'm shortly going to be catching the fringes of Storm Christoph (fortunately, there's little danger of flooding where I am). Catch you later. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]